named-persona-adversarial-review

Topics in the source

• Named-Persona Adversarial Review
• Example Output
• Problem
• Attribution discipline (read this first — it is the load-bearing rule)
• Rules
• Persona Pools
• Severity Levels
• The Process

TL;DR: Abstract roles find abstract problems. Named engineers with documented, sourced philosophies find problems you would actually fix — as long as you cite the real principle and never invent the quote. Triggers: "review this PR with real engineers" | "named persona review" | "philosophy-grounded review" Abstract adversarial review ("act as a saboteur") produces generic findings — the model imagines what a reviewer might say. This skill grounds each lens in a real, sourced engineering philosophy documented in references/personaprinciples.md: what Ken Thompson actually argued about trust, what Linus actually demonstrated about good taste — not what an AI imagines. How it differs from adversarial-reviewer: abstract roles → surface-level findings; named, sourced personas → findings anchored to a documented principle you can cite and defend. Cost: 1 round ≈ 8-12 min. Comparable to waiting for CI. This skill puts named, real people's principles to work. That power is also its failure mode: language models hallucinate quotes. To stay honest: 1. Cite the principle, not a fabricated verbatim quote. Prefer paraphrasing a documented position ("Thompson's Reflections on Trusting Trust argu

This is an excerpt. Refer to the complete source and its current requirements.